Formal verification offers the strongest guarantee of software correctness, but it does not scale: the proofs demanded by interactive theorem provers such as Coq require enormous expert effort. Large language models (LLMs) promise to generate these proofs automatically, yet existing approaches wire a fixed, human-designed proof strategy into the system and constrain the model to follow it (retrieving premises and predicting tactics one step at a time, or splitting goals by divide-and-conquer), and still prove only a fraction of their target theorems.
arXiv:2607. 06341v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Formal verification offers the strongest guarantee of software correctness, but it does not scale: the proofs demanded by interactive theorem provers such as Coq require enormous expert effort.
AI agents are increasingly used for programming, but do not provide any guarantee on the correctness of generated code. Verified code generation, in which an agent produces both an implementation and a machine-checked proof of its specification, offers a stronger path toward trustworthy AI-generated software.
arXiv:2608. 13522v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: AI agents are increasingly used for programming, but do not provide any guarantee on the correctness of generated code.
arXiv:2608. 09277v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Verified code generation asks a large language model (LLM) to generate both an executable program and a machine-checkable proof that the program meets a formal specification, promising software that is correct by construction.
arXiv:2603. 18334v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: As Large Language Models (LLMs) increasingly assist secure software development, their ability to meet the rigorous demands of Rust program verification remains unclear.
arXiv:2607. 16372v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Interactive theorem proving (ITP) underpins program verification and formalized mathematics, but its manual effort limits scalability.
arXiv:2606. 31134v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: While Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated exceptional capabilities in mathematical reasoning, they frequently produce subtle errors that evade human detection.
arXiv:2606. 28841v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language models are increasingly capable of mathematical reasoning, but the proofs they generate are often unreliable and hard to verify.
arXiv:2602. 20064v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Large language models are increasingly deployed as agents: they plan, call tools, read untrusted data, and act on the results.
arXiv:2512. 10187v3 Announce Type: replace Abstract: LLMs excel at reasoning, but validating their steps remains challenging.
arXiv:2608. 05420v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) can generate text that resembles a mathematical proof, but resemblance does not establish correctness.
arXiv:2607. 12650v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Tool access alone does not make LLM empirical reasoning governable: accepted outputs need not descend from attested evidence, and accepted deductions need not hold up under formal scrutiny.